Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Monday, 8th September 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Campaign for railway link from Capital to Borders far from over



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Promise to reinstate Waverley line must be kept, maintains Jeremy Purvis.
THE North British Railway Company opened a line from Edinburgh to Hawick 156 years ago. The Waverley route, as it became known when it was extended to Carlisle, was closed in 1969.

Since then, people living in the Borders, in my constituency, ha
ve contributed to the public subsidy of our rail services in Scotland without having a rail service into the heart of their community.

The Borders is the largest landmass in Britain not connected by rail. Scotland has 340 passenger stations. Glasgow has 59, the Highlands have 58 and Fife has 19. The Borders and Midlothian have none. There are no rail services into the heart of the Borders through Midlothian.

I was heavily involved in the campaign for the Waverley Railway Bill in the second session of the Scottish Parliament. I worked with local campaigners and ministers in the Liberal Democrat coalition administration to ensure this Bill passed through the Scottish Parliament. I remember celebrating with cross-party MSPs from the South of Scotland on the afternoon the Bill was passed.

Sadly, those celebrations have been short-lived. Since taking office, various SNP ministers have dodged my questions, motions and letters calling for clarity about the future of the Borders railway. Many people in the Borders have contacted me with concerns that the route would be severely delayed, as the SNP has already delayed other key transport projects passed by the previous administration.

My concerns were confirmed when the Transport Minister's statement to parliament about the railway raised more questions than it answered.

Funding for this key project has yet to be finalised. Ministers will not decide funding arrangements until after a consultation, which has no start or end date. The only detail the Transport Minister was clear about was that the SNP is moving away from the previous capital grant model of funding and no government investment in the project will be forthcoming.

The SNP intends to finance the project through borrowing. I am certain many who were set to benefit from the Borders Railway will be shocked at the giant question mark now hanging over the project.

The Transport Minister also failed to give a date for work to start, only managing a woolly statement that work will start "within the life of this parliament".

I am confident local campaigners will continue their fight for a railway line to Edinburgh and I intend to continue my campaign for a proper commitment to the Borders Railway.

The current situation is not good enough for me and it's certainly not good enough for people living in the Borders. Regrettably, therefore, the campaigning is not over.

• Jeremy Purvis is Liberal Democrat MSP for Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale





The full article contains 470 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Sedov,

Scotland 19/03/2008 11:15:05
I agree with Jeremy that the railway line to the borders is essential for this important area of Scotland and wish him and the campaign well. The hypocrisy of the SNP knows no bounds. Salmond is right in criticising the method of borrowing through schemes like the PFI but it appears that the only way the railway link to the borders will be funded is through a similar type scheme. Time for the NATS to come clean on this and I would ask them this question - are you really interested in developing the whole of Scotland including the Borders or just those bits that you have electoral support?
2

Alasdair,

19/03/2008 11:41:59
Shut up, sedov. Jeremy Purvis had the opportunity to write that article in a manner that actually might see progress, and instead turned it into a deeply childish, politically motivated, rant.
Personally, I hope the SNP do pull the finger out on this one, and push for it, but if the Lib Dems cared so much about it, why wasn't it a priority in the last 10 YEARS?
It took 8 years before anything happened in the Scottish Parliament, and 50 YEARS of Labour and especially the Tories running down our railways before that.
To try and foist the follies of 50 years on the SNP.. who have been in power LESS THAN ONE YEAR (!!!) is frankly pathetic, and speaks volumes about the divisionary politics currently being employed by the recently deposed Lib Dem/Labour cabal.
3

PaulW,

Borders 19/03/2008 12:00:11
Sedov#1: Considering Christine Grahame, who chaired the cross party group looking to restore the railway, almost booted Purvis into touch and had 33% of the vote, I seriously challenge your assertion that the SNP does not have support in the Borders or does not care about this project. In fact, on the regional vote, the SNP beat all parties total vote across both seats and on that first vote Purvis would no longer be MSP for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale. perhaps there would not be a funding prblem if Jeremy Purvis and his Lib Dem cronies had not helped the Tories and Labour vote through the absurd tram line for Edinburgh, replacing the no 22 bus service at a cost of £500 million (more than double the cost of the Waverley Line). That had more to do wuith trying to shaft the SNP's budget than it did with regard to sustainable transport.

What the SNP appears to be trying to do is to ensure that whatever funding is adopted is working from a secure cost projection and realistic delivery dates, and a funding model that is not punitive in finance charges. The Lib Dems, after all, had eight years to deliver this project and managed to lay not one single piece of track and they had made no firm funding commitment themselves - smacks of hypocrisy, big time. Let us not also forget that David Steel was elected in a by-election in the area on a promise to preserve the railway line - not only did he fail in that but he and his party failed to achieve its restoration when in the Scottish Exec - 40 years of failure. JP should be happy there is some light at the end of the tunnel.

4

Sedov,

Scotland 19/03/2008 12:55:07
#2 Thanks for your response Alasdair, It would appear my post has given you the chance to put your point of view so what is your point about shutting up? You and #2 have not answered the question I have put to the NATS. Are you going ahead with the Waverely line -yes or no and how are you going to finance it? I will give you a clue - the SNP dreamingly think that finace will come from the "not for profit" sector. This is how far the SNP have moved from reality - so what do you think? question.
5

ecpd,

Scotland 19/03/2008 13:30:22
The SNP are right to stall this project. The original cost projections were a joke and have climbed dramatically since then, and that is before a spade has even touched the ground.

The govnt must not have to bail it out halfway because of "unexpected cost rises".

6

PaulW,

Borders 19/03/2008 13:34:54
Sedov, I think the funding model proposed will involve private sector finance, but a different balance of risk between private and public/not for profit sectors than the traditional PFI or PPP model. Profits over and above agreed finance costs are reinvested in the project (hence non profit distribution model).

As far as I was aware the Government has committed to funding the project.I will copy text from the press release under a fresh comment.
7

Alasdair,

19/03/2008 13:34:57
When I said "shut up", sedov, it was because you were whining about hypocrisy in a totally misplaced manner.
There is nothing hypocritical about wanting to get costings correct.
There IS something hypocritical about the Lib Dems being involved in running the country for EIGHT YEARS before doing anything about this "close to their hearts" issue, then moaning because they've not heard what the SNP are going to do with it in less than ONE EIGHTH of that time.
Ya follow?
8

PaulW,

Ayton 19/03/2008 13:37:45
Sedov#1 and # 4 - here is the text of the press release. I think it is pretty clear that they are behind it. Design work is underway and they now have to go through procurement procedures (EU compeition law demands this) to set up the joint venture / NPD body:

"The Borders Rail Project, which will strengthen some of Scotland's poorest rural communities and provide sustainable, integrated and cost effective public transport infrastructure, was given the go ahead today.

Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson updated Parliament on the due diligence exercise that Transport Scotland had carried out on the project and to set out the way forward.

He said:

"The Scottish Government has always been clear that this project must deliver value for money. That is why I stated in June that our continued support for this project would only be possible if the project met three funding conditions set by the previous administration.

"Now that Transport Scotland has completed the due diligence exercise I am happy to announce today that we expect the project to be delivered in 2013 at a cost of between £235-£295 million. I can also announce that a decision has been made to take forward this procurement using a non-profit distributing vehicle.

"The use of NPD models for railways is already well established - for example the financial structure of Network Rail. The details of our final approach will be developed by Transport Scotland in conjunction with the Financial Partnerships Unit and Partnerships UK, having taken full account of market soundings and the need for a competitive procurement process.

"There are many benefits to this project and at its heart is the need to build a dynamic and growing economy that provides prosperity and opportunities for all. The project will also provide for a full range of housing options to the Borders and surrounding regions.

"The railway will also provide a sustainable, integrated and cost effective public transport alternati
9

PaulW,

Borders 19/03/2008 13:39:15
was cut off.

.....to the car, connecting people, places and businesses across the Scottish Borders, Midlothian and into Edinburgh. It is estimated that 450,000 tonnes of carbon will be saved over a 60 year period by constructing this railway.

"I believe that this project will bring real benefits to the Scottish Borders communities and I am delighted to outline the plans for the successful delivery of this railway."

The three funding conditions set by the previous administration were:

The requirements of the business case including patronage levels, cost and housing growth projections must be met
A clear and comprehensive risk management strategy must be developed and delivered
The railway must be integrated with the local bus services to ensure the widest impact in the Borders and Midlothian
The project will re-open the 35 mile route between Edinburgh and Galashiels

There will be stations at Shawfair, Eskbank, Newtongrange and Gorebridge(Midlothian), Stow, Galashiels and Tweedbank (Scottish Borders).

There will be half hourly services with a 55 minute journey time from the centre of Edinburgh to Tweedbank.

The project received Royal Assent on July 24, 2006. Since the Act was passed, a number of key items of work have been progressed by the Waverley Rail Partnership, including: Ground Investigation works, Topographical survey works and land acquisition. Work on the outline design also commenced in October 2007.
10

Don Lenin,

Edinburgh 19/03/2008 14:27:43
Alasdair - or can I call you number 2? There's no need to be so aggressive. Just calm down.
11

Alasdair,

19/03/2008 14:52:21
Aggressive, moi?
Why I oughta...
12

LVT,

Edinburgh 19/03/2008 15:06:45
The government is right to be cautious- the short Alloa- Stirling line is way over budget.
13

Linda,

Edinburgh 19/03/2008 15:08:59
# 1 Sedov is talking nonsense. In the Regional list vote in South of Scotland (Borders) the SNP gained 50% of the vore which is higher than they got in the North East of Scotland.

Lib Dems had 8 years in government to progress the Borders Line.

If Lib Dems had not taken £500 million from transport budget to pay for one Tram line in Edinburgh there might have been capital left to pay for the expensive Borders Rail Line.
14

Calum Crubag,

19/03/2008 15:43:06
Just do it.

If it costs more then charge Labour in London. Labour closed the line. Lab/Libdem did little to get the project underway in 8 years of power.
15

Doh,

19/03/2008 16:06:39
#13 Linda,

I think you are confusing the South of Scotland (8 seats) with the Borders (only 2 parliamentary seats).

"Lib Dems had 8 years in government to progress the Borders Line."

And it was progressed, the current scheme has not originated with the SNP administration, the worry is that it will be de-railed by the SNP (who are perhaps too eager to implement tax cuts than invest in public transport).

16

subrosa,

19/03/2008 16:17:48
This rail project should include Peebles, one of the largest towns in the borders. Why did the politicians who designed this ignore Peebles?

# 15 It could have been progressed far quicker. Jeremy Purves could have done a great deal more and taken far more interest.
17

Sedov,

Scotland 19/03/2008 16:48:03
#9 and other PaulW. good contributions Paul. What about this for an idea:- The Scottish gov have 90 million pounds to spend on the development of the third sector including social enterprise which is an important "more than profit" sector of the scottish economy. What if , say, four areas of the borders which would benefit from a railway line form social enterpise companies, ltd by guarantee, and be responsible for the running of their own section but be accountable to a central board of reps from each area company. The companies and the intial start up finance to build the railway and track would be financed from the Scottish/ UK Gov and the profits from the railway would go back into the local areas which would recruit and train local staff. This would fulfill the pre election claim by the NATS that they are both radical and left of centre.
18

PaulW,

Borders 19/03/2008 17:43:47
#17 Sedov

Cheers. It's an interesting idea, although I would be worried that having four organisations might be overly complicated. I am open-minded basically, but will have ponder on that one. Have to go now, but catch up with you again no doubt on another day. All the best.
19

Toast,

19/03/2008 18:14:01
Total waste of money,invest in better road links.
20

Mallard,

Borders 19/03/2008 19:06:17
For all the trainspotters information this stupid project becomes a complete waste of money if it is allowed to progress south of Gorebridge. There is no sound business case for the Borders section which will serve 20% of the population and be used by very few of them. Fix the A7 or upgrade the A68 and spend the money usefully.
It has no environmental benefit whatever and is far from "sustainable" as some numpty above believes.
21

Waspy100,

19/03/2008 20:41:09
#14
'scuse me I always thought Beeching closed the lines and he was employed by the tories?
22

Jock Politicaljunkie,

Glasgow 19/03/2008 20:47:56
I suspect any delay comes down to lack of money in the main. The insistence by the opposition parties in the continued wasting of £500M on a daft tram line that will only be accessible by 10% of the local populous, being the culprit.

I suspect also that this was a political and NOT a practical decision by them to rob this £500M from the budget of the new SNP Government by effectively spending it for them.

A better use of this money, if allied to the Waverley money, would have been to coordinate both the SOUTH SUB AND THE WAVERLEY PROJECTS. I would also advocate the reopening the Peebles Loop and connect the two projects.

Make the routes electrified, double track, and build the Waverley line through to Carlisle. The electrification would be cleaner; cheaper to run; quicker; be able to cope with the 1:80 gradients better; and be able to pay for itself.

Such a project would bring real benefit to the Greater Edinburgh area, the Borders (including Peebles) and give the network as a whole, strategic flexibility.
23

Paul Voltiare,

19/03/2008 21:21:52
They should pull the plug on the tram projects now, cut their losses & invest in better worthwhile public causes such as this.
24

Chris Cook,

Linlithgow 19/03/2008 22:38:49
Two points.

Firstly, it isn't actually necessary to borrow to invest in public assets like the Waverley Link - just conventional. Simply keep the asset in public ownership, agree a reasonable initial return, say 1.5 to 2% and index link it, and then sell units in the resulting stream of revenues to investors.

And before any one says no-one would buy such units, investors queued up last year to buy 50 year Wessex Water Index linked bonds at 1.49%.

The difference between these units and bonds is that these units would be non repayable (but tradable) "Public Equity" in the sort of partnership vehicle of which City Of Glasgow now has three. And the other difference is that not repaying capital drastically cuts finance costs

Secondly, we would still need to cover both this minimal finance cost and operating costs. Now when the Jubilee Line wasw extended in London, the cost was about £2bn, but householders along the line had windfall entirely unearned gains in property values estimated at £17bn.

Why not require local land owners, particularly those near new stations, to pay an annual location levy based on increased land rental values, and use this to subsidise the operating losses?

It's not exactly Rocket Science, is it?

And yes, #22 the sort of imaginative regeneration you have in mind becomes possible: not just that, but using this technique on financing the Tram would probably release the funds to finance your ideas as well.
25

Robbierunciman,

Romney Marsh 19/03/2008 23:19:18
The key comparison for a projects like this is, how much would new or improved roads cost and the carbon saving, an earlier on contributor pointed out.

A recent NAO report has shown, roads are usually systematically underpriced and always come in vastly over budget when complete. The models used to calculate their economic benefits have a number of unvalidated assumptions.

Basically with a railway we know the price, cos the DfT hates building them and insists that they are properly priced. For road building we only know the first price and the overspend (as much as £10bn) is concealed.

I have wondered however, if the proposers dream of linking Tweedbank to Carlisle is strategic. It has always seemed to me that reinstating the route from Riccarton junction to Northumberland would be more useful as it would provide an alternative route for main line traffic and freight.

On suburban and extra-urban rail routes around edinburgh - if Ed wants to be a world class city, they are essential.
26

Saoghal Beag,

20/03/2008 07:09:55
Toast, dinnae they fowk in edinburgh ken whit the fowk in the borders need, it's mare o them thirsels living in shoogly shacks aboot gala. they'll aw drive cos the train will cost ower much and take even longer. nae share if it's a white or a pink elephant but the money could be better spent in the borders tae the real benefit ow the fowk.
27

donald,

glasgow 20/03/2008 09:29:24
Nothing like being in opposition to reinvent oneself.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More Scotland

More Scotland >>

More Edinburgh transport plans

More Edinburgh transport plans >>

Features

Supplements
Scotsman Digital Archive
Scotsman Hotels Scotsman Hotels

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.